suitability of M16 for Afghanistan

[haven]

Interesting article and comments in the NY Times (of all places)
about the suitability of the M16 and related models for battlefield
use in Afghanistan.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle

The article raises the issue of jamming, which has plagued the M16
since the Vietnam era. But it also talks about the M16 rounds issued
to our troops, and how they are not the best choice against an opponent
who is not wearing body armor.

Chip Haven

 

[Dave Bennett]

One of the issues that is rarely mentioned is the fact that many of our weapons systems, uncliding the M16A4's and M4's are wearing out faster than they are being replaced... adding to the misfires, jamming, and breakage experienced.

The rounds used is an issue, and IMO a hollow point type round would be ideal but IIRC is illegal under the Geneva Convention which our enemies ignore anyway.

I'm a big fan of the .45 and 7.62 anyway

 

[rdb4Runner]

Hollow points are legal ammo if you were issued them, but if you procure them some other way and use them, its a LOAC violation(at least that's what we're taught). Napalm is also legal, which i think is kind of crazy.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

Hollowpoints are legal if the hollow point is there to add accuracy to the projectile. If it's there to increase the expansion of the bullet (to cause additional injury) it's not legal.

Guess what?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

As I understand the history of the M16 system, the original barrel configuration, which employed a very slow rate of twist (1:12 IIRC), resulted in a very lightly stabilized bullet that was prone to immediate upset and tumbling upon contact with a target, resulting in very high lethality and wounding potential indeed. In fact in the early days the "black rifle" was reportedly infamous among the Viet Cong. It was only after the barrel twist was quickened considerably (the goal being, for some reason known only to the rear echelon, enhanced accuracy and penetration) that the M16 and M4 became famous for drilling neat little 5.56mm holes through combatants. I'm surprised the NYT piece did not mention this. Also, I believe it was an early-on and ill-advised change in powder specification that caused most of the jamming problem - again IIRC.

It seems to me the issues could be addressed quite simply by employing different barrels for different theaters or even units. Slow twist for general combat with cotton-robed insurgents, etc.; faster twist for modern adversaries clothed in body armor. Same with the ammunition - M193 for use against irregulars; M855 when penetration is paramount.

Or just issue 7.62s and .50s to the guys who need to shoot through stuff . . .

 

[dzzz]

I believe more twist was added for better performance in foliage in vietnam. I expect it's a good rifle for the 90% plus who will almost certainly never fire their rifle in combat. But the Nato approach that includes a heavy round as a second standard probably makes the most sense.
The marines seem to have a man portable SAW now that has a very high rate of fire. The M16 is part of a fighting system and it's suitability is probably a very complex question.
Also, with body armor becoming more affordable, small and fast may turn out to be a smart design after all.

 

[el_jefe]

Woah, this could get out of hand reaaaal quick.

FWIW:

Inside 300 meters or so, the M855 will still tumble pretty well. But after that, good luck putting anyone down with a single round.

The prime reasons for malfunctions are, as TACODOC mentioned that we are shooting out this weapons far faster than we can replace them. At my first duty station in 97, I was issued a Vietnam spec M16 that had been upgraded to an A2, 3 prong flash suppresor and all. Also, the crap the military issues to clean the rifle is a multi purpose lube/cleaner and doesn't do either one very well. I bought my own cleaner and lubricant, and had much better luck (I also had a cleaner rifle when it came time for inspection).

Magazines are also an issue, the milspec ones are easy to dent and cause misfeeds, especially when you are out pulling combat ops bouncing off **** and diving for cover.

Also FWIW, the new FN SCAR is slowly making it's way into the field, so we will see what happens with that. It's still (primarily) a 5.56 weapon, but I don't feel motivated to get into the 5.56 v 6.8 v 7.62 v large rock arguement at the moment.

 

[Martinjmpr]

You know, as long as soldiers have been issued weapons by their superiors, they've been b!tching about those same weapons.

I think it's important to resist the urge to use "argument by anecdote." Anyone can say "I knew a guy who knew a guy who had his weapon jam up in combat" but the fact is, the M16 series of weapons is the 2nd most battle-tested rifle in use today (2nd only to the AK series.) It's been standard issue in the US military for going on 45 years, which is a record (by contrast, the the M1903 Springfield was standard issue for about 35 years and the M1 Garand was standard issue for about 20.)

The proof is in the pudding: Outside of the US, the most combat-experienced military force is the Israeli Defense Forces and they switched to the 5.56mm weapon (both the AK-based Galil and the US M16) years ago, and they haven't shown any inclination to switch back.

You also have to consider that the logistical concerns are not trivial. The M1 Garand was originally designed to use the .276 Pedersen round. The reason it was changed to .30-06? Because the US military had millions of rounds of .30-06 ammo left over from WW1 stocks and it seemed foolish to throw all of that away in order to adopt a new caliber. Considering that our military of today is much larger than the military of the 1920s and 30's, the cost of changing calibers would be exponentially greater.

Another factor that favors the 5.56 is the fact that not everybody who carries a weapon is an infantryman. Having one standard weapon and one standard caliber simplifies training as well as logistics.

I'm always very skeptical of reports that say US troops are inadequately equipped because most of the time if you scratch deep enough, you can find that the person doing the complaining has an agenda they're trying to push.

 

[007]

I think the M16 is a very suitable platform and the 5.56 round is very capable for the most part. The only issues I had with mine jamming seemed to be from Magazine abuse or the bolt getting sticky from powder residue mixed with the elements.
I would of rather had a bit more of a projectile to increase the recoil operating force and downrange ********** down. I always thought necking the 5.56 up to a 6mm would be a good move for most.

The 5.56 is plenty devastating out of the gate because of its speed, but after 300 yards or so its just a .22 with out the shock wave.

Would I trade our equipment with the enemy? not a chance. Is there room for improvement? Always

 

[SunTzuNephew]

While engagements in Iraq have been at short range, in A-stan have been quite a bit longer - out to 800-900 meters. Since the ROE have been tightened up to prevent civilian casualties, having a round with longer range is a good idea.

However, Martin's points are well taken. There is a solution: Use the existing AR platform (with it's excellent ergonomics, most of the bugs worked out, etc) with a better round. My personal favorite is the 6.5 Grendel, which maintains power and accuracy to beyond 1000 meters, while maintaining the magazine well length of the AR.

The other commonly referenced caliber, the 6.8 SPC is not as good, imho: It lacks the long-range performance and striking power of the 6.5.

The other advantage is that existing rifles (M4/M16) can easily be converted to the 6.5 (or 6.8) simply by replacing the upper assembly and magazines. Longer or shorter barrels can also be easily fitted, depending on mission requirements.

 

[02TahoeMD]

Though I do not have experience with the AR15/M16/M4 platform in a military environment, I do have quite some time with it in the L.E. field. I personally have an M4 that I really like a LOT, and have friends who use them every day, and some have used them for street engagements. Some quite successfully, some not so much...

Two failures (sort of) of note. In one shooting, the rifle was deployed against a suspect who had just shot and injured an officer. The cover officer opened fire on the suspect's hiding place and the rifle jammed on the third round. Showing great presence of mind, the cover officer stepped in front of the wounded officer, cleared his gun, and dragged him to safety. Miracle of the day, one of the two rounds first fired hit the suspect and killed him. But...what if he hadnt been so fortunate? Hate to think of how badly it may have turned out.
Incident two involved a team with another department. They were involved in an armed confrontation with a suspect in the woods. M4s used in the fight, and the suspect was shot once. In the chest. From 30 yards. And received a flesh wound, with the round basically being able to be retrieved without major surgery. Fortunately, (again!) bad guy surrendered when realizing he just cheated death. (ultimate diagnoses was that the round hit some brush and was tumbling upon striking the suspect) The team subsequently has converted to 7.62 NATO rifles for their work. Cant say I blame them.

I enjoy my M4, but if the SHTF, I am grabbing my FN FAL. In 7.62 I trust! I understand the reasoning the military converted to the 5.56...but wonder if they had been better off over the past 40 years staying with the 7.62.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

Here is the second part of the article...
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

So that article points out that troops are being trained to expect a single engagement with a single enemy combatant to require three rounds, using the questionably suitable M855 penetrator round. That gives a soldier with a 20-round magazine less potential killing power than a WWII infantryman carrying an eight-round Garand - with which I doubt drill sergeants felt the need to train anyone to employ a multiple hit strategy.

Again, it seems a simple change to theater-suitable frangible ammunition would take care of most of the problem.

 

[stevenmd]

Interesting thread! Without much knowledge of any of the weaponry, with the exception of the AR15 from a civy standpoint, I have to ask the question of: if we didn't have constituents and government contracts governing what we give our troops, would we still be using the M16? Is there a better weapon out there that will give our troops to firepower they need to compete with an enemy who has better firepower?

 

[007]

Interesting thread! Without much knowledge of any of the weaponry, with the exception of the AR15 from a civy standpoint, I have to ask the question of: if we didn't have constituents and government contracts governing what we give our troops, would we still be using the M16? Is there a better weapon out there that will give our troops to firepower they need to compete with an enemy who has better firepower?

There is always something better, The enemy doesn't have better firepower. The M16 will place more rounds more effectively than the the AK-47 at close or short range.

Keep in mind that our guys have equipment and weapons that make most engagements seem like murder. If a war is worth fighting, its worth fighting when your under or equally gunned also.